Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Barry Dennison
Applicant
-and-
Edward Sarafian
Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Dennison v. Sarafian
1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code").
2This interim decision deals with an adjournment request made by the respondent on the basis that on the day scheduled for the hearing he is scheduled for a haemodialysis and would be required to leave the hearing at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. to attend this medical appointment. The respondent does not explain why the adjournment request was made within a week of the hearing date when the respondent had been aware of the date since August 2010. The respondent states that he can attend the hearing on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. The applicant objects to the adjournment citing the fact that the respondent has been aware of the date for months.
3Despite the late request, the adjournment is granted on the basis that the respondent is scheduled for haemodialysis on the day of the hearing. The Tribunal has by letter dated April 4, 2011 offered a number of dates within a month of the adjourned hearing date.
Other Matters
4In his request the respondent raised a number of other matters related to the processing as well as the merits of the Application.
5The respondent takes issue with the applicant's delay in perfecting the Application, as well as his failure to comply with the timelines set out in the Confirmation of Hearing Date and Required Preparation dated August 11, 2010. The consequence, if any, of an alleged failure of either party to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and any Directions made to date can be addressed at the outset of the hearing.
6The respondent also states that he has never been served with anything from the applicant, implying that he has never received a copy of the Application or the underlying complaint form. The Tribunal provided a copy of the Application under cover of a letter dated April 27, 2010. In addition, the respondent provided a detailed Response to the allegations in the human rights complaint underlying the Application. I am satisfied that the respondent has substantial knowledge of the subject matter of this Application.
7The respondent also demands that a mediation be scheduled. The applicant has refused mediation. Mediation at the Tribunal is a voluntary process; unless all parties agreed to mediation it will not be scheduled. Despite the applicant's refusal to attend mediation, if the parties are in agreement, the Tribunal does offer mediation/adjudication on the hearing date. The parties are directed to the Tribunal Rule 15A which is applicable to Transitional Applications such as this one:
15A.1 With the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal member hearing an Application may act as mediator. In such circumstances, the mediator may continue to hear the matter as adjudicator.
15A.2 Where the parties agree to mediation-adjudication, they must sign a mediation-adjudication agreement before the mediation commences.
8The respondent also complains that he has not been provided with all of the documents that the applicant intends to rely on at the hearing. This appears to be confirmed by the applicant who has filed lawyer's letters with the Tribunal but has not provided them to the respondent. If that is the case and the applicant intends to rely on these materials, they should be provided to the respondent immediately.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of April, 2011.
"signed by"________
David Muir
Vice-chair